surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
The main problem with SSDs now is all this side frustration. I would've totally gone SSD RAID 0 for my current rig if I thought it would actually work more often than it failed.
One important factor that isn't included is using Intel's SRT. Using a 7200RPM Hard Drive as a boot drive but using a small 20-40GB as a cache for instant access of your most used programs and whatnot.
I updated my 4 year-old laptop by doubling the memory and replacing the old 7200 spinning-platter drive with a SSD, and it's like a whole new machine. I also went with one for my latest gaming rig that I built a year ago (as the main system drive), and while there was about an hour of frustration getting it to work, it's been glorious ever since.
Instead of OCZ, however, I went with Intel SSD's. I've heard horror stories (much like the one in the article, or others about defective units) about OCZ drives, so I wouldn't recommend them. I'm actually surprised that Alex went with them for all the tests, since Intel has been rock-solid on their SSDs (mostly) since the beginning.
Price *is* still a bitch, though, but you definitely get what you pay for.
Instead of OCZ, however, I went with Intel SSD's. I've heard horror stories (much like the one in the article, or others about defective units) about OCZ drives, so I wouldn't recommend them. I'm actually surprised that Alex went with them for all the tests, since Intel has been rock-solid on their SSDs (mostly) since the beginning.
Price *is* still a bitch, though, but you definitely get what you pay for.
I'm hoping SSD technology becomes affordable by the time the next Playstation/Xbox arrives, because I've heard some incredible things about a SSD in a PS3.
As for PC gaming, adding an SSD is outside my upgrade budget, but it's definitely something I'll keep in mind when I'm putting together a new box.
As for PC gaming, adding an SSD is outside my upgrade budget, but it's definitely something I'll keep in mind when I'm putting together a new box.
I've got a Vertex 2 SSD - Photoshop was taking 5 - 10 seconds to start up and something was wrong so I ran the disk cleaning utility and it got back to 1 - 2 seconds again.
Would be neat if Windows automated that process.
Would be neat if Windows automated that process.
i spend more money than i need to on my PC, but i still don't have an SSD, and this is why.
they may be better, but they aren't 10x better as the price would suggest.
they may be better, but they aren't 10x better as the price would suggest.
@DasPooch
I think the OCZ debacle was with older models, but I can't remember exactly as I went with a decent Kingston for my build, so don't hold me to that statement. I think your comment does bring up a good point that people looking to purchase a new SSD need to do a little extra research regarding the drives since there's still a lot of variation from one model to the next.
That said, the computer that has the SSD boot drive runs incredibly well compared to regular 7200RPM drives and I'm waiting for the 120GB models to drop a bit before I install one in my main PC.
I think the OCZ debacle was with older models, but I can't remember exactly as I went with a decent Kingston for my build, so don't hold me to that statement. I think your comment does bring up a good point that people looking to purchase a new SSD need to do a little extra research regarding the drives since there's still a lot of variation from one model to the next.
That said, the computer that has the SSD boot drive runs incredibly well compared to regular 7200RPM drives and I'm waiting for the 120GB models to drop a bit before I install one in my main PC.
SSDs are big in acces times which is, above all, the most important factor about them. Although I like the work done here, it would maybe be of great use if the rest of the testing system were to be known. Otherwise a rather poor CPU performance could give us a good reason why both drives behaved as they did.
Also, the OCZ drives aren't really the best performing drives out there, in terms of money/performance ratio - you'd have to look into the Crucials for that, IMO.
Also, the OCZ drives aren't really the best performing drives out there, in terms of money/performance ratio - you'd have to look into the Crucials for that, IMO.
But yeah, solid test. For games, they're not that useful, yes, but they ease the whole startup process and you can get to work (or play) faster and, most of all, with much less noise - HDDs can get awfully loud if not properly isolated from the cage.
I bought a 120 gig ssd for $100 a few months back when I was gathering parts for a new PC build. I also got a 2 tb caviar (green?). I use the ssd for windows and the caviar for games and stuff. I absolutely love it. Windows 7 boots up in 12 seconds, and thats with me typing in my password. I could cut 3 seconds off that if I changed my motherboard bios startup settings.
I highly recommend getting an ssd if you can get a deal. 120 gigs is pretty small, sad that my xbox has a larger drive than my pc. Fast, quiet, fast, small, fast... they are wonderful.
I highly recommend getting an ssd if you can get a deal. 120 gigs is pretty small, sad that my xbox has a larger drive than my pc. Fast, quiet, fast, small, fast... they are wonderful.
@psycho terror2
price preformance is almost never liniar not with hdd vs solid state not with gpu's not with cpu's not with headphones not with speakers not with almost everything.
price preformance is almost never liniar not with hdd vs solid state not with gpu's not with cpu's not with headphones not with speakers not with almost everything.
Lamer - glad to hear this being requested, because that is the plan going forward for game/hardware reviews. This article was just a tad bit early.
Your reviews keep getting better, Alex. Nice job! Keep it up, I love having PC/hardware reviews on destructoid.
Too bad about the solid 3; not much of a budget option if you can land a vertex for 30 bucks more.
On my latest build I used a crucial C300 (sata 3) for my boot drive/programs, and I have to say, for any of you who have heard the hype about SSDs but aren't too sure... it is real.
These things are the future.
Sure, the price per/GB is way too high to use them for storage, and yes before I adopted, I heard a lot of horror stories about failing drives, but I just did my homework and hoped for the best and I fucking love it.
I only have enough room to have windows 7, programs files, and 1 installed game at a time... but it's fucking awesome! I just use a couple TB 7200 drives for regular old storage.
Boot time is insane. INSANE. And I just can't get over how quickly every program I open up pops up like it's been open the whole time. And I love how silent and cool they are. You never really notice how loud HDs are until they aren't.
It really is the best upgrade you can give your computer.
It's all about finding the right drive/brand/size/price. But the technology HAS arrived.
Can't wait to RAID a couple large drives when the price per/GB goes down.
Too bad about the solid 3; not much of a budget option if you can land a vertex for 30 bucks more.
On my latest build I used a crucial C300 (sata 3) for my boot drive/programs, and I have to say, for any of you who have heard the hype about SSDs but aren't too sure... it is real.
These things are the future.
Sure, the price per/GB is way too high to use them for storage, and yes before I adopted, I heard a lot of horror stories about failing drives, but I just did my homework and hoped for the best and I fucking love it.
I only have enough room to have windows 7, programs files, and 1 installed game at a time... but it's fucking awesome! I just use a couple TB 7200 drives for regular old storage.
Boot time is insane. INSANE. And I just can't get over how quickly every program I open up pops up like it's been open the whole time. And I love how silent and cool they are. You never really notice how loud HDs are until they aren't.
It really is the best upgrade you can give your computer.
It's all about finding the right drive/brand/size/price. But the technology HAS arrived.
Can't wait to RAID a couple large drives when the price per/GB goes down.
Yes, as Lamer pointed out, if you're going to give us benchmark stats, they won't mean too much to anyone else unless we know the rest of your rig specs.
Intel drives tend to be slower and more expensive than the OCZ drives (although still much much faster than HDDs).
Also to clarify the article, the OCZ drive that was used in the review sports the second generation sandforce controller and that is what really makes the difference in these drives. For the most part any SSD with the same controller is going to perform close enough to call it the same as this drive. Also there have been BSOD issues with the new sandforce controllers. for anyone interested, after scouring for reviews, the corsair force 3 drives seem to be much more stable than the OCZ drives for whatever reason. Too bad this article did not go up a week or two ago because there were a lot of great sales on Newegg for SSDs. I picked up a 120g Corsair Force 3 drive for $135 on Saturday.
Speaking on the performance and value of an SSD I will say this. It will make the largest overall improvement to your computer that a single part can make. I bought my first SSD (120g OCZ Vertex 2) for my MBP, and from now on I will put an SSD in every PC I build/buy. It important to note for those of you that do not really follow PC hardware, that you should not compare a $140 120g SSD to a $150 3 TB HDD and think that the HDD is better value because it had 25 times the capacity. Both of these devices do the same thing yes, but they are not to be used the same way. A high capacity HDD should be thought of as a semi truck whereas an SSD should be thought of as a Porsche. One is built for storage and one is built for EXTREME performance. When you have an SSD, it should only be used for applications, not for storage of files.
It is also important to note the major drawback of SSDs that the article did not mention. SSDs have a certain number of available writes, which means once they are used up, the drive is done forever. This number is supposed to last like 10 years based on the amount that an average user will write to their drive. Also because of the way that the drive arranges and uses the data on the chips (mainly the way that SSDs manages erased blocks), lots of adding and removing data actually greatly decreases performance of the drives. There are things that stop that from happening, windows 7 supports TRIM but as far as I know OS X Lion only supports TRIM on apple drives. The other option is automatic garbage collection, I know for a fact that Sandforce controlled SSDs (OCZ, Corsair, Crucial, AData, etc.) have garbage collection. The first and second generation Intel SSDs did not support garbage collection, I do not know about the 3rd gen drives. So because of lion not having TRIM support, if you are thinking about an SSD for a Mac, get a Sandforce controlled one.
For me personally, I have purchased 3 SSDs for my two computers. I will never use an HDD as a system disk again. The prices on previous generation drives was pretty steep, but then generation you can pick up a NICE, not cheap, 120g drive for under $150. A new SSD is not going to have the kind of performance increase for gaming as a new video card would, but if you want to upgrade your system, adding an SSD to the mix would be a big upgrade well worth the price.
Also to clarify the article, the OCZ drive that was used in the review sports the second generation sandforce controller and that is what really makes the difference in these drives. For the most part any SSD with the same controller is going to perform close enough to call it the same as this drive. Also there have been BSOD issues with the new sandforce controllers. for anyone interested, after scouring for reviews, the corsair force 3 drives seem to be much more stable than the OCZ drives for whatever reason. Too bad this article did not go up a week or two ago because there were a lot of great sales on Newegg for SSDs. I picked up a 120g Corsair Force 3 drive for $135 on Saturday.
Speaking on the performance and value of an SSD I will say this. It will make the largest overall improvement to your computer that a single part can make. I bought my first SSD (120g OCZ Vertex 2) for my MBP, and from now on I will put an SSD in every PC I build/buy. It important to note for those of you that do not really follow PC hardware, that you should not compare a $140 120g SSD to a $150 3 TB HDD and think that the HDD is better value because it had 25 times the capacity. Both of these devices do the same thing yes, but they are not to be used the same way. A high capacity HDD should be thought of as a semi truck whereas an SSD should be thought of as a Porsche. One is built for storage and one is built for EXTREME performance. When you have an SSD, it should only be used for applications, not for storage of files.
It is also important to note the major drawback of SSDs that the article did not mention. SSDs have a certain number of available writes, which means once they are used up, the drive is done forever. This number is supposed to last like 10 years based on the amount that an average user will write to their drive. Also because of the way that the drive arranges and uses the data on the chips (mainly the way that SSDs manages erased blocks), lots of adding and removing data actually greatly decreases performance of the drives. There are things that stop that from happening, windows 7 supports TRIM but as far as I know OS X Lion only supports TRIM on apple drives. The other option is automatic garbage collection, I know for a fact that Sandforce controlled SSDs (OCZ, Corsair, Crucial, AData, etc.) have garbage collection. The first and second generation Intel SSDs did not support garbage collection, I do not know about the 3rd gen drives. So because of lion not having TRIM support, if you are thinking about an SSD for a Mac, get a Sandforce controlled one.
For me personally, I have purchased 3 SSDs for my two computers. I will never use an HDD as a system disk again. The prices on previous generation drives was pretty steep, but then generation you can pick up a NICE, not cheap, 120g drive for under $150. A new SSD is not going to have the kind of performance increase for gaming as a new video card would, but if you want to upgrade your system, adding an SSD to the mix would be a big upgrade well worth the price.
Interesting. I'm thinking of getting a Crucial M4 SSD for my next computer. OCZ's keep getting such mixed reviews.
I've got an OCZ2 as a program drive and a Intel SSD as my boot drive. Mainly due to, at the time, Intel SSDs being considered more reliable.
Certainly worth the outlay in my opinion as I run an editing PC. Having one SSD for the OS, one for programs, and a number of platter drives for storage is absolutely great.
Certainly worth the outlay in my opinion as I run an editing PC. Having one SSD for the OS, one for programs, and a number of platter drives for storage is absolutely great.
in reverse order,
1. no, the OCZ debacle is consistent, they do push out firmware without really testing it, so that's a positive if you like troubleshooting $200 purchases. their forums are great for SSD ranting and have a lot of contributors, so that's a plus.
2. if you have a P67/Z68 board, the Sandforce 2281's with the intel/sandforce bitching = problems for the forseeable future.
people also have issues with the Intel X25M 510, but it's a different set of issues.
go figure.
3. by the way .... WTF, there's a Vertex 3, Agility 3 and a Solid 3. you picked the cheapest mofo SSD with well acknowledged problems, and if you had done the pre-purchase ritual of google-searching for "OCZ Solid 3 problems" and read anything there, the title would be "Review: OCZ Vertex 3" instead.
4. IF you're buying a SSD now, and it has to be SATA 3, buy the crucial m4 / c300, Corsair Force GT, patriot wildfire, kingston hyperx
instead of the drive listed above.
that's not really a ranked list, they're just faster and better drives. also more reliable, and in the same price bracket if you're not into shopping via amazon/newegg.com
5. if you're going to be a cheap bastard and RAID 0 SSD's as your first SSD, don't. Save up and just get a larger one and keep TRIM, which will be your new Defrag each month or 2. without TRIM, they will slow down considerably.
6. then again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs is still awesome.
1. no, the OCZ debacle is consistent, they do push out firmware without really testing it, so that's a positive if you like troubleshooting $200 purchases. their forums are great for SSD ranting and have a lot of contributors, so that's a plus.
2. if you have a P67/Z68 board, the Sandforce 2281's with the intel/sandforce bitching = problems for the forseeable future.
people also have issues with the Intel X25M 510, but it's a different set of issues.
go figure.
3. by the way .... WTF, there's a Vertex 3, Agility 3 and a Solid 3. you picked the cheapest mofo SSD with well acknowledged problems, and if you had done the pre-purchase ritual of google-searching for "OCZ Solid 3 problems" and read anything there, the title would be "Review: OCZ Vertex 3" instead.
4. IF you're buying a SSD now, and it has to be SATA 3, buy the crucial m4 / c300, Corsair Force GT, patriot wildfire, kingston hyperx
instead of the drive listed above.
that's not really a ranked list, they're just faster and better drives. also more reliable, and in the same price bracket if you're not into shopping via amazon/newegg.com
5. if you're going to be a cheap bastard and RAID 0 SSD's as your first SSD, don't. Save up and just get a larger one and keep TRIM, which will be your new Defrag each month or 2. without TRIM, they will slow down considerably.
6. then again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs is still awesome.
Here's what you really need to know about OCZ SSD if you have a Z68 motherboard: The new SATA specification is garbage, and will cause an SSD to randomly hang in a powered-down state. This corresponds to a BSOD every 2-3 days that requires a power cycle to correct.
Just want to add to the testimony regarding how amazing the performance increases are. My OCZ Vertex 2 blazes past most other people when I load games in my 3yo comp.
@Lamer
I apologize, I meant to include system specs. They're now posted. I realize my system isn't the best, but I will now be able to do reviews on a system Nvidia sent me just yesterday.
@B P Farrell
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it! It really is a shame that you can get a much superior drive for only $30 more. If it weren't for the stability issues, the Solid 3 would be a very viable option, but sadly... that's not the case. I do the same as you with my Vertex 3, and absolutely love it. The boot time of Windows 7 really is amazing on it. Now that I have 3 SSD (1 Crucial, 1 Vertex 3, and 1 Solid 3), I intend on putting them in RAID 0. I'll let you know how it goes (I know it works better with identical drives. Sue me)
@Azzurus
I completely understand OCZ's mixed record. I got a Vertex 3 I intend on reviewing soon, and the thing works like a dream compared to my Solid 3.
@toliman
I already had a Solid 3, and I can only work with what I have. As I said in my review, a review for the Vertex 3 is on the way. Keep your pants on.
I apologize, I meant to include system specs. They're now posted. I realize my system isn't the best, but I will now be able to do reviews on a system Nvidia sent me just yesterday.
@B P Farrell
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it! It really is a shame that you can get a much superior drive for only $30 more. If it weren't for the stability issues, the Solid 3 would be a very viable option, but sadly... that's not the case. I do the same as you with my Vertex 3, and absolutely love it. The boot time of Windows 7 really is amazing on it. Now that I have 3 SSD (1 Crucial, 1 Vertex 3, and 1 Solid 3), I intend on putting them in RAID 0. I'll let you know how it goes (I know it works better with identical drives. Sue me)
@Azzurus
I completely understand OCZ's mixed record. I got a Vertex 3 I intend on reviewing soon, and the thing works like a dream compared to my Solid 3.
@toliman
I already had a Solid 3, and I can only work with what I have. As I said in my review, a review for the Vertex 3 is on the way. Keep your pants on.
I can tell you from experience that I return OCZ SSD's hand over fist at my work. The rest aren't too bad. Intel I have yet to see a single truly defective drive. I use Intel for my SSD and it is awesome no issues or bsods or anything.
I can tell you from experience that I return OCZ SSD's hand over fist at my work. The rest aren't too bad. Intel I have yet to see a single truly defective drive. I use Intel for my SSD and it is awesome no issues or bsods or anything.
You should do reviews of solid state hybrids, still as effective in some areas, but worlds cheaper. I recently got one for my laptop and the performance difference in boot-up, and desktop loading, program launch / performance is through the roof compared to the standard HDD it came with. Im actually going to pick another one up for my desktop, the 8 second boot time has spoiled me so much lol.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591
if they keep havin high FAIL/DEAD ratio then DO NOT WANT....just look up for OCZ SSDs in newegg dot com and you'll see what i mean
Always nice to get a new perspective on SSDs. Upgrading my PC so I tried to do the research. I ended up ditching the idea because my steam install is around 300GB. Mostly because of the simplicity of having everything on a single drive, bigger than 120GB is out of the pricerange sweetspot.
I have to say, you're getting better. Glad to see some benchmarks. A couple of fairly minor nitpicks, if I may.
This may be just a typo, but your reference to the SATA interface speed for each drive implies gigabytes per second rather than gigabits per second. Related to that, why is the WD drive only at 3gbps? According to the interwebs, model WD1002FAEX supports the SATA III interface speed (although it is not capable of saturating the available bandwidth).
Also, your graphs for SC2, Portal 2, and DXHR are slightly misleading; well-labeled, but at a glance they imply a much greater difference in performance than they would if started from zero, like the previous graphs.
It would be nice to see more average performance scores. Most drives can burst to an impressive maximum throughput, but that isn't really indicative of what you'll see in everyday use. The only place I could find any averages was in the HD Tune screen caps, and only for read speed. In fact a bar graph of mix/max/avg format might be nice.
One last thing. If you're going to keep doing these, it's fine to have a token hard disk in the mix of bar graphs just to see where we're advancing from, but it's sort of pointless to compare the two items. They both store data, but their purpose beyond that is very different.
This may be just a typo, but your reference to the SATA interface speed for each drive implies gigabytes per second rather than gigabits per second. Related to that, why is the WD drive only at 3gbps? According to the interwebs, model WD1002FAEX supports the SATA III interface speed (although it is not capable of saturating the available bandwidth).
Also, your graphs for SC2, Portal 2, and DXHR are slightly misleading; well-labeled, but at a glance they imply a much greater difference in performance than they would if started from zero, like the previous graphs.
It would be nice to see more average performance scores. Most drives can burst to an impressive maximum throughput, but that isn't really indicative of what you'll see in everyday use. The only place I could find any averages was in the HD Tune screen caps, and only for read speed. In fact a bar graph of mix/max/avg format might be nice.
One last thing. If you're going to keep doing these, it's fine to have a token hard disk in the mix of bar graphs just to see where we're advancing from, but it's sort of pointless to compare the two items. They both store data, but their purpose beyond that is very different.
Err... reviewing shitty old SSD's?
OCZ Vertex 3 or Crucial M4 256gb (new firmware puts it on par with vertex 3... at $100 cheaper).
sata 3 (6gb/s) are where mobo's are going now. No real point getting an old SSD on sata 2. You are limiting yourself.
You can get an pci add on card (HighPoint Rocket 620) which boosts the sata 2 (3gbs) up to 6gbs. It's a cheap ($15ish) MUST if you are getting an older SSD.
You only really need an SSD as a boot drive. Meaning a 60gb drive will add tremendous responsiveness to your general computing without breaking the bank.
OCZ Vertex 3 or Crucial M4 256gb (new firmware puts it on par with vertex 3... at $100 cheaper).
sata 3 (6gb/s) are where mobo's are going now. No real point getting an old SSD on sata 2. You are limiting yourself.
You can get an pci add on card (HighPoint Rocket 620) which boosts the sata 2 (3gbs) up to 6gbs. It's a cheap ($15ish) MUST if you are getting an older SSD.
You only really need an SSD as a boot drive. Meaning a 60gb drive will add tremendous responsiveness to your general computing without breaking the bank.
I have a laptop with an SSD boot drive/Intel Smart Response and a 750 GB platter, and it's great. Just get a cheap SSD, slap your OS on it, and use a platter for the rest. Cake.
OCZ failure rate is over-reported. The way it interacts with the new SATA specification leads to BSOD that aren't the result of product failure.
Still pretty intolerable that the error is there in the first place.
Still pretty intolerable that the error is there in the first place.
@Aequitas
Thanks for the tips. Sadly, it wasn't a typo. The WD Drive I had was still on a SATA II interface, so it would be pointless to hook it up to a SATA III port. However, since I got a new system from Nvidia, I will be able to use that in all my future reviews to create a more up to date consistent review for you all...
How many trials are you thinking of? All these are out of ten, so I'm assuming you want more? I had previously assumed ten would be enough to remove doubt that they were going through burst cycles, but maybe not?
Thanks for the tips. Sadly, it wasn't a typo. The WD Drive I had was still on a SATA II interface, so it would be pointless to hook it up to a SATA III port. However, since I got a new system from Nvidia, I will be able to use that in all my future reviews to create a more up to date consistent review for you all...
How many trials are you thinking of? All these are out of ten, so I'm assuming you want more? I had previously assumed ten would be enough to remove doubt that they were going through burst cycles, but maybe not?
Alex: I hope I did not sound like I was mad at the review, I was only trying to help with what would have made it better :)
Good to know you're commited to continue the trend in the future, looking forward to that.
Good to know you're commited to continue the trend in the future, looking forward to that.
@Alex Bout:
No no, not more trials of the load time tests. Those are fine. I was referring to the scores in AS SSD and ATTO. Although I'm not sure that I should be making suggestions at 3 AM -- I have no idea what I was getting at regarding average scores. Maybe a few runs of AS and ATTO, recording results for each run, then compiling? I don't know, please disregard that section. As I reread your article today, it looks fine to me.
Also I feel compelled to point out, any/all of the SATA specifications would perform near identically for your WD Caviar drive. The performance is being constrained by the mechanical nature of the device, not the interlink to the rest of the system. For reference:
SATA I 1.5Gb/s = 187.5 MB/s, SATA II 3Gb/s = 375MB/s, SATAIII 6Gb/s = 750MB/s. Until you bump up against those numbers, you can safely rule out the bus as the performance bottleneck of your hard disk or SSD.
No no, not more trials of the load time tests. Those are fine. I was referring to the scores in AS SSD and ATTO. Although I'm not sure that I should be making suggestions at 3 AM -- I have no idea what I was getting at regarding average scores. Maybe a few runs of AS and ATTO, recording results for each run, then compiling? I don't know, please disregard that section. As I reread your article today, it looks fine to me.
Also I feel compelled to point out, any/all of the SATA specifications would perform near identically for your WD Caviar drive. The performance is being constrained by the mechanical nature of the device, not the interlink to the rest of the system. For reference:
SATA I 1.5Gb/s = 187.5 MB/s, SATA II 3Gb/s = 375MB/s, SATAIII 6Gb/s = 750MB/s. Until you bump up against those numbers, you can safely rule out the bus as the performance bottleneck of your hard disk or SSD.
i can't wait in the future where SSD becomes a standard.
just like Blu Ray is becoming more and more everyday :P
just like Blu Ray is becoming more and more everyday :P
Try testing on some games that actually have heavy hard drive activity instead of whatever is laying around. ARMA 2 is free now you know.
follow
